DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections:
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/19/2026, with respect to objection to claims 12 and 14 due to informalities have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claims 12 and 14 have been appropriately corrected. The objection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112:
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/19/2026, with respect to objection to claims 1-15 failing to comply with the written description requirement have been fully considered and are persuasive. Amendment to independent claim 1, 13 and 15 overcomes the rejection. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101:
Applicant's arguments filed 3/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Amendment to independent claims 1, 13 and 15 does not overcome the rejection. The amendment the detection apparatus is arranged to initiate a hazard reduction or avoidance procedure does not overcome the rejection. Although applicant’s specification as filed describes a hazard reduction or avoidance procedure as comprising [0019] slowing down the movement of the crane…an emergency stop of the crane…raising the load higher to reduce the probability of the load colliding with a target
…changing the direction of the crane…moving the load laterally in relation to the crane which would overcome the rejection by integrating the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception; it also describes a hazard reduction or avoidance procedure as comprising [0019] issuing an audio signal…may comprise issuing a light signal…may comprise sending a notification to another crane and/or to the control system of the terminal or the terminal surveillance. The notification may comprise information regarding the location of a target, for example, the coordinates of a target which is a form of output and considered insignificant post-solution activity. Amended independent claims 1, 13 and 15 do not clearly define which actions comprise a hazard reduction or avoidance procedure. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1, 13 and 15 have been considered but are moot. Amendment to independent claims 1, 13 and 15 changes the scope of the claims necessitating new grounds of rejection.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/19/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 13 is directed to a crane anti-collision method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 13 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed
to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claim 13 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below)
and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 13 recites:
A crane anti-collision method comprising the steps of:
measuring the optical distance to targets from the crane in the first direction of travel by a scanning apparatus installed in the crane and comprising a plurality of laser scanners;
detecting targets automatically by the detection apparatus using the scanning apparatus
wherein: the detection apparatus is used for: defining by the scanning apparatus a three-dimensional reference zone of the goods handling area that is composed of the surface and vertical tolerance of the goods handling area;
detecting a target in the goods handling area on the basis that the height defined by the scanning apparatus differs from that of said reference zone;
using a plurality of the laser scanners for the defining of the reference zone; and
covering a path in front of a load by beams of the laser scanners of the scanning apparatus;
scanning by the scanning apparatus in a downward diagonal direction such that the majority or all of the measurements are directed in the downward diagonal direction; and
initiating a hazard reduction or avoidance procedure if the scanning apparatus fails to obtain constantly changing information so that as the crane moves forward, on the basis of changes in the surface of the goods handling area there are created corresponding changes first to the front edge of the beam, and from there onwards to other portions of the beam.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of “by a scanning apparatus ”. That is, other than reciting “by a scanning apparatus” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, “measuring…” and “defining…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person observing the crane environment and forming simple judgements. Additionally, the “measuring…” and “defining…”steps describe a mathematical relationship and falls in the mathematical concepts grouping; and are also not too complex to be performed with the aid of pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as
follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions
continue to represent the “abstract idea”:
Claim 13 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 13 recites:
A crane anti-collision method comprising the steps of:
measuring the optical distance to targets from the crane in the first direction of travel by a scanning apparatus installed in the crane and comprising a plurality of laser scanners;
detecting targets automatically by the detection apparatus using the scanning apparatus
wherein: the detection apparatus is used for: defining by the scanning apparatus a three-dimensional reference zone of the goods handling area that is composed of the surface and vertical tolerance of the goods handling area;
detecting a target in the goods handling area on the basis that the height defined by the scanning apparatus differs from that of said reference zone;
using a plurality of the laser scanners for the defining of the reference zone; and
covering a path in front of a load by beams of the laser scanners of the scanning apparatus;
scanning by the scanning apparatus in a downward diagonal direction such that the majority or all of the measurements are directed in the downward diagonal direction; and
initiating a hazard reduction or avoidance procedure if the scanning apparatus fails to obtain constantly changing information so that as the crane moves forward, on the basis of changes in the surface of the goods handling area there are created corresponding changes first to the front edge of the beam, and from there onwards to other portions of the beam.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional
limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “detecting”, “using” and “scanning” steps, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the detecting, using and scanning steps from external sources (i.e. laser scanner, scanning apparatus) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering target data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Additionally, regarding the limitation of “initiating a hazard reduction or avoidance procedure“, applicant’s specification as filed describes a hazard reduction or avoidance procedure as comprising [0019] slowing down the movement of the crane…an emergency stop of the crane…raising the load higher to reduce the probability of the load colliding with a target…changing the direction of the crane…moving the load laterally in relation to the crane which would overcome the rejection by integrating the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception; it also describes a hazard reduction or avoidance procedure as comprising [0019] issuing an audio signal…may comprise issuing a light signal…may comprise sending a notification to another crane and/or to the control system of the terminal or the terminal surveillance. The notification may comprise information regarding the location of a target, for example, the coordinates of a target which is a form of output and considered insignificant post-solution activity. Lastly, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The crane anti-collision method is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the measuring and defining steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular vehicle navigation or control problem, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 13 does not include
additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the measuring and defining amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “detecting”, “using” , “scanning” and “initiating”; the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in
Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “detecting”, “using” , “scanning” and “initiating” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, and the specification does not provide any indication that the computer is anything other than a conventional computer network component. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Same analysis applied to independent claim 1 and 15.
Dependent claims 2-12, 14, 16-17 and 20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-12, 14, 16-17 and 20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claim 13. Therefore, claims 1-15 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Additionally, dependent claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. It does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter computer program code is directed to software per se and is not within one of the four statutory categories. The program code is described as a software routine that can be loaded onto any general purpose computer; thus the claim is directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichimura et al. (US 20210072399 A1; hereinafter Ichimura) in view of Kosaka et al. (US 20200167940 A1; hereinafter Kosaka).
Regarding claim 1, Ishimura teaches a crane anti-collision system (see at least, Fig 1; [0013] a gantry crane in which an obstacle sensing system of the present invention is installed) comprising: a scanning apparatus installed in a crane comprising a plurality of laser scanners (see at least, Fig 1, [0033] The transmission part 9 and the reception part 10 can be formed of, for example, a two-dimensional laser scanner) arranged to measure the an optical distance to targets from the crane in the first direction of travel (see at least, [0003] laser scanner that performs scanning by steering a laser
light beam to front of the vehicle in a horizontal direction; [0032] The obstacle sensing system…
emits laser light beams from each transmission part…toward the travel surface ); a detection apparatus arranged to automatically (see at least, [0099] automatic driving of the moving body) detect targets by the scanning apparatus (see at least, [0088] the obstacle sensing system…can sense an
obstacle in directions other than the direction parallel to the moving direction y with the sensing range increased in the transverse direction x); wherein: the scanning apparatus comprises a plurality of the laser scanners (see at least, Fig 1, [0033] The transmission part 9 and the reception part 10 can be formed of, for example, a two-dimensional laser scanner), Ichimura further teaches the laser scanners of the scanning apparatus have beams that cover a path in front of a load (see at least, [0032] The obstacle sensing system 1 first emits laser light beams from each transmission part 9 toward the travel surface 8. The transmission part 9 emits laser light beams radially (in a fan shape) multiple times in sequence); wherein: the scanning apparatus is arranged to scan in a downward diagonal direction such that the majority or all of the measurements are directed in the downward diagonal direction (see at least, Fig 6; [0033] a two-dimensional laser scanner that has a resolution of 0.125 to 1.000 degrees
for the angle θn and that has a mirror rotation speed of 5 to 100 Hz); and the detection apparatus is arranged to initiate a hazard reduction or avoidance procedure (see at least, [0069] when the determination mechanism 13 determines that an obstacle is present, a warning sound or the like is given to alert the crane operator) if the scanning apparatus fails to obtain constantly changing information so that as the crane moves forward, on the basis of changes in the surface of the goods handling area there are created corresponding changes first to the front edge of the beam, and from there onwards to other portions of the beam (see at least, [0066] The determination mechanism 13
compares the data obtained from the reception part 10 with the data on the sensing region S and determines whether each reflected light beam is the reflected light beam from the inside of the
sensing region S).
PNG
media_image1.png
356
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ishimura does not explicitly teach the detection apparatus is arranged for: defining by the scanning apparatus a three-dimensional reference zone of the goods handling area that is composed of the surface and vertical tolerance of the goods handling area; and detecting a target in the goods handling area on the basis that the height defined by the scanning apparatus differs from that of said reference zone. However, Kosaka teaches these limitations.
Kosaka teaches the detection apparatus is arranged for: defining by the scanning apparatus a three-dimensional reference zone of the goods handling area (see at least, [0107] laser scanner…a device that is capable of measuring a three-dimensional shape of a measurement target object from a maximum reachable height ) that is composed of the surface and vertical tolerance of the goods handling area (see at last, [0147 data processing section…estimates reference height…of ground
surface…in…load region…on the basis of reference height ..of ground surface); and detecting a target (see at least, [0019] the laser scanner of the data acquisition section, and that creates a guide frame enclosing the top surface of the measurement target object) in the goods handling area on the basis that the height defined by the scanning apparatus differs from that of said reference zone (see at least, [0150] reference height…of ground surface…the difference of which is smaller than the predetermined threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ichimura to include defining by the scanning apparatus a three-dimensional reference zone of the goods handling area that is composed of the surface and vertical tolerance of the goods handling area; and detecting a target in the goods handling area on the basis that the height defined by the scanning apparatus differs from that of said reference zone as taught by Kosaka in order to create guide information on the basis of reference height (Kosaka, [0154]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Ichimura and Kosaka teaches the anti-collision system according to claim 1. Kosaka further teaches wherein the laser scanner is a 3D laser scanner (see at least, [0107] laser scanner 62, a device that is capable of measuring a three-dimensional shape of a measurement target object from a maximum reachable height of telescopic boom 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ichimura to further include the laser scanner is a 3D laser scanner as taught by Kosaka in order to achieve measurement accuracy by taking into account the amount of data and a data accuracy necessary to create appropriate guide information. (Kosaka, [0107]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ichimura and Kosaka teaches the anti-collision system according to claim 1. Ichimura further teaches wherein the scanning apparatus is arranged to scan in the downward diagonal direction (see at least, Fig 2; [0033] a two-dimensional laser scanner that
has a resolution of 0.125 to 1.000 degrees for the angle θn and that has a mirror rotation speed of 5 to 100 Hz); and the detection apparatus is arranged to initiate a hazard avoidance procedure see at least, [0069] when the determination mechanism 13 determines that an obstacle is present, a warning
sound or the like is given to alert the crane operator).
Kosaka further teaches if the scanning apparatus does not receive distance measurement information from inside the reference zone from any part of the area measured by the scanning apparatus (see at least, [0261] data processing section…excluded region…is set…configured to exclude point data p acquired in excluded region JA from targets of data processing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Ichimura to include if the scanning apparatus does not receive distance measurement information from inside the reference zone from any part of the area measured by the scanning apparatus as taught by Kosaka in order to create guide information on the basis of reference height (Kosaka, [0154]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Ichimura and Kosaka teaches the anti-collision system according claim 1. Kosaka further teaches wherein the detection apparatus is arranged to identify deviations downwards from the reference zone of the goods handling area (see at least, [0262] a target of creation of guide information…the measurement target object…excluded region…is desirably set at a position at which a lower end height of excluded region…is separate from the top surface of suspended load W by a predetermined distance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Ichimura to include the detection apparatus is arranged to identify deviations downwards from the reference zone of the goods handling area as taught by Kosaka in order to create guide information on the basis of reference height (Kosaka, [0154]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Ichimura and Kosaka teaches the anti-collision system according to claim 1. Ichimura further teaches wherein the scanning apparatus comprises one or more laser scanners installed in the front end (see at least, Fig 1, [0033] The transmission part 9 and the reception part 10 can be formed of, for example, a two-dimensional laser scanner) according to each primary direction of the crane (see at least, [0003] laser scanner that performs scanning by steering
a laser light beam to front of the vehicle in a horizontal direction; [0032] The obstacle sensing system…emits laser light beams from each transmission part…toward the travel surface ).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Ichimura and Kosaka teaches the anti-collision system according to claim 1. Kosaka further teaches wherein the scanning apparatus is installed so low that the scanning apparatus is able to detect a target in the path of the crane regardless of the position of the target, when the target is a reference unit or a crash test dummy (see at least, [0259] Data processing section…determines that there is a risk of contact, in a case where a horizontal distance between suspended load W and grounded object C projected on a horizontal plane is at or smaller than predetermined threshold (such as one meter), and a distance in the vertical direction is at or smaller than a predetermined threshold …such as one meter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Ishimura to include the scanning apparatus is installed so low that the scanning apparatus is able to detect a target in the path of the crane regardless of the position of the target, when the target is a reference unit or a crash test dummy as taught by Kosaka in order to reliably avoid collision (Kosaka, [0237]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Ichimura and Kosaka teaches the anti-collision system according to claim 1. Ichimura further teaches the beams of the laser scanners of the scanning apparatus cover the path in the front of the crane (see at least, [0032] The obstacle sensing system 1 first emits laser light beams from each transmission part 9 toward the travel surface 8. The transmission part 9 emits laser light beams radially (in a fan shape) multiple times in sequence) with at least such a lateral opening angle that the scanning apparatus covers the path of the crane for the width required by the crane also while the crane is turning (see at least, Fig 1; see at least, [0039] The length of the long sides 17a, 17b can be set within a range from several meters to several tens of meters in the horizontal direction. The length of the long sides 17a, 17b is set to be longer or the same as the reference line 16…the range of the sensing region S is set such that the reference line 16 is always in the sensing region S).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Ichimura and Kosaka teaches the an anti-collision system according to claim 1. Ichimura further teaches crane control system comprising: an automatic control for controlling the crane (see at least, [0070] the control mechanism 15 automatically controls deceleration, stopping, and the like of the gantry crane in automatic traveling thereof); and an anti-collision system according to claim 1 (see at least, [0065] The obstacle sensing system 1 can appropriately determine safety of the moving body 2).
Regarding claim 13, Ichimura teaches a crane anti-collision method (see at least, Fig 1; [0013] a gantry crane in which an obstacle sensing system of the present invention is installed) comprising the steps of: measuring the optical distance to targets from the crane in the first direction of travel (see at least, [0003] laser scanner that performs scanning by steering a laser light beam to front of the vehicle in a horizontal direction; [0032] The obstacle sensing system…emits laser light beams from each transmission part…toward the travel surface ) by a scanning apparatus installed in the crane and comprising a plurality of laser scanners (see at least, Fig 1, [0033] The transmission part 9 and the reception part 10 can be formed of, for example, a two-dimensional laser scanner); detecting targets automatically (see at least, [0099] automatic driving of the moving body) by the detection apparatus using the scanning apparatus (see at least, [0088] the obstacle sensing system…can sense an
obstacle in directions other than the direction parallel to the moving direction y with the sensing range increased in the transverse direction x); wherein: the detection apparatus is used for: covering a path in front of a load by beams of the laser scanners of the scanning apparatus (see at least, [0032] The obstacle sensing system 1 first emits laser light beams from each transmission part 9 toward the travel surface 8. The transmission part 9 emits laser light beams radially (in a fan shape) multiple times in sequence); scanning by the scanning apparatus in a downward diagonal direction such that the majority or all of the measurements are directed in the downward diagonal direction (see at least, Fig 2; [0033] a two-dimensional laser scanner that has a resolution of 0.125 to 1.000 degrees for the angle θn and that has a mirror rotation speed of 5 to 100 Hz); and initiating a hazard reduction or avoidance procedure (see at least, [0069] when the determination mechanism 13 determines that an obstacle is present, a warning sound or the like is given to alert the crane operator) if the scanning apparatus fails to obtain constantly changing information so that as the crane moves forward, on the basis of changes in the surface of the goods handling area there are created corresponding changes first to the front edge of the beam, and from there onwards to other portions of the beam see at least, [0066] The determination mechanism 13 compares the data obtained from the reception part 10 with the data on the sensing region S and determines whether each reflected light beam is the reflected light beam
from the inside of the sensing region S).
PNG
media_image1.png
356
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ichimura does not explicitly teach the detection apparatus is used for: defining by the scanning apparatus a three-dimensional reference zone of the goods handling area that is composed of the surface and vertical tolerance of the goods handling area; and detecting a target in the goods handling area on the basis that the height defined by the scanning apparatus differs from that of said reference zone and using a plurality of the laser scanners for the defining of the reference zone. However, Kosaka teaches this limitation.
Kosaka teaches the detection apparatus is used for: defining by the scanning apparatus a three-dimensional reference zone of the goods handling area (see at least, [0107] laser scanner…a device that is capable of measuring a three-dimensional shape of a measurement target object from a maximum reachable height ) that is composed of the surface and vertical tolerance of the goods handling area (see at least, [0147] data processing section…estimates reference height…of ground surface…in…load region…on the basis of reference height ..of ground surface); and detecting a target (see at least, [0019] the laser scanner of the data acquisition section, and that creates a guide frame enclosing the top surface of the measurement target object) in the goods handling area on the basis that the height defined by the scanning apparatus differs from that of said reference zone (see at least, [0150] reference height…of ground surface…the difference of which is smaller than the predetermined threshold) and using a plurality of the laser scanners for the defining of the reference zone (see at least, [0092] laser scanner 62 includes a total of 16 laser transmitter/receiver sensors, and is capable of acquiring point cloud data of a measurement target object).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Ichimura to include defining by the scanning apparatus a three-dimensional reference zone of the goods handling area that is composed of the surface and vertical tolerance of the goods handling area; and detecting a target in the goods handling area on the basis that the height defined by the scanning apparatus differs from that of said reference zone and using a plurality of the laser scanners for the defining of the reference zone as taught by Kosaka in order to create guide information on the basis of reference height (Kosaka, [0154]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Ichimura and Kosaka teaches the method according to claim 13. Ichimura further teaches a crane anti-collision program comprising a computer program code arranged to perform , when executed on a computer (see at least, [0061] the determination mechanism 13 can be incorporated in a sequencer (PLC) that controls operations of the gantry crane…perform processing
of controlling traveling of the gantry crane, loading, unloading).
Regarding claim 15, Ishimura teaches a manufacturing method of a crane anti-collision system (see at least, Fig 1; [0013] a gantry crane in which an obstacle sensing system of the present invention is installed), comprising the steps of installing in a crane a scanning apparatus (see at least, [0029] the obstacle sensing system…is installed is not limited to the gantry crane…can be installed in…a quay crane) arranged to measure the optical distance to targets from the crane in the first direction of travel (see at least, [0003 laser scanner that performs scanning by steering a laser light beam to front of the vehicle in a horizontal direction; [0032] The obstacle sensing system…emits laser light beams from each transmission part…toward the travel surface); providing the crane with a detection apparatus arranged to automatically (see at least, [0099] automatic driving of the moving body) to detect targets by the scanning apparatus (see at least, [0088] the obstacle sensing system…can sense an obstacle in directions other than the direction parallel to the moving direction y with the sensing range increased in the transverse direction x), wherein: the detection apparatus is arranged for: covering a path in front of a load by beams of the laser scanners of the scanning apparatus (see at least, [0032] The obstacle sensing system 1 first emits laser light beams from each transmission part 9 toward the travel surface 8. The transmission part 9 emits laser light beams radially (in a fan shape) multiple times in sequence); scanning by the scanning apparatus in a downward diagonal direction such that the majority or all of the measurements are directed in the downward diagonal direction (see at least, Fig 2; [0033] a two-dimensional laser scanner that has a resolution of 0.125 to 1.000 degrees for the angle θn and that has a mirror rotation speed of 5 to 100 Hz); and initiating a hazard reduction or avoidance procedure, by the detection apparatus (see at least, [0069] when the determination mechanism 13
determines that an obstacle is present, a warning sound or the like is given to alert the crane
operator), if the scanning apparatus fails to obtain constantly changing information so that as the crane moves forward, on the basis of changes in the surface of the goods handling area there are created corresponding changes first to the front edge of the beam, and from there onwards to other portions of the beam (see at least, [0066] The determination mechanism 13 compares the data obtained from the reception part 10 with the data on the sensing region S and determines whether each reflected light beam is the reflected light beam from the inside of the sensing region S).
Ichimura does not explicitly teach the detection apparatus is used for: defining by the scanning apparatus a three-dimensional reference zone of the goods handling area that is composed of the surface and vertical tolerance of the goods handling area; and detecting a target in the goods handling area on the basis that the height defined by the scanning apparatus differs from that of said reference zone and using a plurality of the laser scanners for the defining of the reference zone. However, Kosaka teaches this limitation.
Kosaka teaches the detection apparatus is used for: defining by the scanning apparatus a three-dimensional reference zone of the goods handling area (see at least, [0107] laser scanner…a device that is capable of measuring a three-dimensional shape of a measurement target object from a maximum reachable height ) that is composed of the surface and vertical tolerance of the goods handling area (see at least, [0147] data processing section…estimates reference height…of ground surface…in…load region…on the basis of reference height ..of ground surface); and detecting a target (see at least, [0019] the laser scanner of the data acquisition section, and that creates a guide frame enclosing the top surface of the measurement target object) in the goods handling area on the basis that the height defined by the scanning apparatus differs from that of said reference zone (see at least, [0150] reference height…of ground surface…the difference of which is smaller than the predetermined threshold) and using a plurality of the laser scanners for the defining of the reference zone (see at least, [0092] laser scanner 62 includes a total of 16 laser transmitter/receiver sensors, and is capable of acquiring point cloud data of a measurement target object).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Ichimura to include defining by the scanning apparatus a three-dimensional reference zone of the goods handling area that is composed of the surface and vertical tolerance of the goods handling area; and detecting a target in the goods handling area on the basis that the height defined by the scanning apparatus differs from that of said reference zone and using a plurality of the laser scanners for the defining of the reference zone as taught by Kosaka in order to create guide information on the basis of reference height (Kosaka, [0154]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Ichimura and Kosaka teaches the anti-collision system according to claim 1. Ichimura further teaches wherein the detection apparatus is arranged to perform the hazard reduction or avoidance procedure if:
a. the scanning apparatus fails to obtain constantly changing information so that as the crane moves forward, on the basis of changes in the surface of the goods handling area there are created corresponding changes first to the front edge of the beam, and from there onwards to other portions of the beam (see at least, [0066] The determination mechanism 13 compares the data obtained from the reception part 10 with the data on the sensing region S and determines whether each reflected light beam is the reflected light beam from the inside
of the sensing region S); and
b. in the path of the crane or a defined safety margin closer to the path of the crane, the scanning apparatus does not form measurements located within the reference zone (see at least, [0067] The determination mechanism 13 calculates the ratio of the number of reflected light beams from the inside of the sensing region S to the total number of laser light beams emitted from the transmission part 9 as the fullness percentage…when the fullness percentage is equal to or more than a predetermined threshold and determines that an obstacle is present when the fullness percentage is smaller than the threshold).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Ichimura and Kosaka teaches the anti-collision system according to claim 1. Ichimura further teaches wherein the hazard reduction or avoidance procedure comprises issuing an audio or light signal (see at least, [0069] when the determination mechanism 13 determines that an obstacle is present, a warning sound or the like is given to alert the crane operator).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Ichimura and Kosaka teaches the anti-collision system according to claim 1. Ichimura further teaches wherein the hazard reduction or avoidance procedure comprises: slowing down the movement of the crane, changing the direction of the crane, or an emergency stop of the crane (see at least, [0076] The control mechanism 15 can be configured to control an upper limit value of the moving speed of the moving body 2 … decelerate the moving body 2 as the moving body 2
comes closer to an obstacle).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichimura et al. (US 20210072399 A1; hereinafter Ichimura) in view of Kosaka et al. (US 20200167940 A1; hereinafter Kosaka) in
further view of Kroyzer et al. (US 20130087139 A1; hereinafter Kroyzer) and Landra et al. (US 20190193998 A1; hereinafter Landra).
Regarding claim 3, the combination Ichimura and Kosaka teaches anti-collision system according to claim 1. The combination does not explicitly teach the vertical tolerance is defined such that, of the measurements of the laser scanner from the surface of the goods handling area, at least N% remain within the limits of tolerance; and N is 95. However, Kroyzer teaches this limitation.
Kroyzer teaches the vertical tolerance is defined such that, of the measurements of the laser scanner from the surface of the goods handling area, at least N% remain within the limits of tolerance; and N is 95 (see at least, [0084] a proximity detector…laser scanner…may include one or more cranes; [0134] A location at or near a top of a solar tower may be at the top within a tolerance that is…upon the target is at most 95%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of the combination Ichimura and Kosaka to include the vertical tolerance is defined such that, of the measurements of the laser scanner from the surface of the goods handling area, at least N% remain within the limits of tolerance; and N is 95 as taught by Kroyzer in order to maximize solar energy production and/or revenue generation using an optimization algorithm (Kroyzer, [0007]).
The combination does not further explicitly teach when the maximum allowed mass dimensioned for the crane is moved by the crane at the maximum possible acceleration or deceleration of the crane . However, Landra teaches this limitation.
Landra teaches when the maximum allowed mass dimensioned for the crane is moved by the crane at the maximum possible acceleration or deceleration of the crane (see at least, [0040] when the maximum allowed mass dimensioned for the crane is moved by the crane at the maximum possible acceleration or deceleration of the crane).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination Ichimura and Kosaka to include the maximum allowed mass dimensioned for the crane is moved by the crane at the maximum possible acceleration or deceleration of the crane as taught by Lidar in order to have a time-optimized cargo transshipment, in particular in an automatic operation of the crane installation (Landra, [0011).
Claims 7, 11 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichimura et al. (US 20210072399 A1; hereinafter Ichimura) in view of Kosaka et al. (US 20200167940 A1; hereinafter Kosaka) in further view of Fulton et al. (US 20170369288 A1; hereinafter Fulton).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Ichimura and Kosaka teaches the anti-collision system according to claim 1. The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the scanning apparatus is installed so high and at a slightly downwards directed angle that the scanning apparatus is able to detect targets in the path of the crane in time to avoid collisions. However, Fulton teaches this limitation.
Fulton teaches wherein the scanning apparatus is installed so high and at a slightly downwards directed angle that the scanning apparatus is able to detect targets in the path of the crane in time to avoid collisions (see at least, [0037] the location information may include the location of an elevated portion of one or more of the objects 120, 202, 204 to determine whether the moving height of the object 202 on the hook 118 of the crane 208 may collide or impact with the objects 120, 202, 204 along the current travel path).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Ichimura and Kosaka to include the scanning apparatus is installed so high and at a slightly downwards directed angle that the scanning apparatus is able to detect targets in the path of the crane in time to avoid collisions as taught by Fulton so that monitoring may be performed continuously or periodically, and may change guidance control of the crane based on changing conditions (Fulton, [0054]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Ichimura and Kosaka teaches the anti-collision system according to claim 1. The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the detection apparatus comprises a classifier, which is arranged to discriminate targets detected in the goods handling area into different types based on the size of the target and/or the movement of the target. However, Fulton teaches this limitation.
Fulton further teaches wherein the detection apparatus comprises a classifier, which is arranged to discriminate targets detected in the goods handling area into different types based on the size of the target and/or the movement of the target (see at least, [0032] the processing device 218 accesses a database 226 that includes stored information regarding the dimensions of the object 202 being moved, as well as the other objects within the facility 200…includes specific information regarding each of the objects, such as the dimensions of the object).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Ichimura and Kosaka to include the scanning apparatus is installed so high and at a slightly downwards directed angle that the scanning apparatus is able to detect targets in the path of the crane in time to avoid collisions as taught by Fulton so that monitoring may be performed continuously or periodically, and may change guidance control of the crane based on changing conditions (Fulton, [0054]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Ichimura and Kosaka teaches the anti-collision system according to claim 1. The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the hazard reduction or avoidance procedure comprises raising the load higher, or moving the load laterally in relation to the crane. However, Fulton teaches this limitation.
Fulton teaches wherein the hazard reduction or avoidance procedure comprises raising the load higher, or moving the load laterally in relation to the crane (see at least, Fig 2; [0037] the travel path may be defined or changed based on the location of the crane 208 relative to the objects 120, 202, 204. For example, the direction of travel of the crane 208 or the height of the hook 118 may be changed based on a pre-planned travel path or based on changing conditions within the facility 200 (e.g., an object that moves within the pre-planned travel path).
PNG
media_image2.png
462
635
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Ichimura and Kosaka to include the hazard reduction or avoidance procedure comprises raising the load higher, or moving the load laterally in relation to the crane as taught by Fulton so that monitoring may be performed continuously or periodically, and may change guidance control of the crane based on changing conditions (Fulton, [0054]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Ichimura and Kosaka teaches the anti-collision system according to claim 1. The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the hazard reduction or avoidance procedure comprises sending a notification comprising information regarding the location of a target. However, Fulton teaches this limitation.
Fulton teaches wherein the hazard reduction or avoidance procedure comprises sending a notification comprising information regarding the location of a target (see at least, [0034] a warning indicator 304
may be displayed on the display 300 to alert the operator 212 of the potential collision condition and to enable collision avoidance with the at least one object…may also display a current location 306 of the object 202).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Ichimura and Kosaka to include the hazard reduction or avoidance procedure comprises sending a notification comprising information regarding the location of a target as taught by Fulton in order to allow the operator to track and view the real-time movement of the object within the facility (Fulton, [0034]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichimura et al. (US 20210072399 A1; hereinafter Ichimura) in view of Kosaka et al. (US 20200167940 A1; hereinafter Kosaka) in further view of Metzler et al. (US 20150022640 A1; hereinafter Metzler).
Regarding 10, the combination of Ichimura and Kosaka teaches the anti-collision system according to claim 1. The combination does not explicitly teach the detection apparatus is arranged to define the reference surface by (Random Sample Consensus) method. However, Metzler teaches this limitation.
Metzler teaches the detection apparatus is arranged to define the reference surface by (Random Sample Consensus) method (see at least, [0039] The ground surface is automatically derived from the point cloud by a defined evaluation algorithm that analysis the shape of the spatial representation
…the ground surface can be determined using 3D Hough transform or a RANSAC algorithm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Ichimura and Kosaka to include the detection apparatus is arranged to define the reference surface by (Random Sample Consensus) method as taught by Metzler in order to optimize the location and orientation of all camera positions and all 3D points (Metzler, [0025]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Klement et al. (US 20210147192 A1) discloses a crane anti-collision system comprising: a scanning apparatus installed in a crane, comprising a plurality of laser scanners arranged to measure the an optical distance to targets from the crane in the first direction of travel; a detection apparatus arranged to automatically detect targets by the scanning apparatus (e.g. ([0063] sensor system for collision avoidance and precise positioning; [0060] The sensor units…and in particular their 3D scanners and/or cameras can then be used to measure and recognise the objects located in the fields of view).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOYA PETTIEGREW whose telephone number is (313)446-6636. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30pm - 5:00pm M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TOYA PETTIEGREW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights